Page: 50 - 60
URL: http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ELTTech/article/view/9431
TEACHER-CENTERED OR STUDENT-CENTERED?
TACKLING THE CONFUSION ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
TEACHERS ARE FACING
Rialita Kusuma Shinta Dewi
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
rialitakusumashintadewi@student.upi.edu
Article first received: 1 September 2017
Final proof received: 15 November 2017
ABSTRACT: Talking about which approach between teacher-centered and
student-centered is best applied in teaching English, especially English as Foreign Language (EFL), is never enough to fulfil the curiosity of both researchers and teachers. Indonesian teachers are clearly in a dilemma over how to tackle the confusion. It is suggested that teachers divert their way of teaching into a more modern one (student-centered); whereas looking at the situation Indonesian teachers are facing, it is said to be hard to apply. This article tries to unveil the phenomenon by investigating two groups of students taught using different strategies; one was using direct-instruction strategy (teacher-centered), the other was using cooperative learning strategy (student-centered). Akomodasi Perhotelan (Hotel Industry) students were chosen due to their crucial goal in learning English as Foreign Language (EFL). The use of digital media was implemented by delivering lesson through blog and online quizzes such as ProProfs and Hot Potatoes. The research was done through a quasi-experimental design in which both the students pre-test and post-test were analysed by using SPSS 16.0. The result of the study revealed that using cooperative learning strategy is more effective than using direct instruction strategy. It is likely, then, to be beneficial to apply cooperative learning strategy (student-centered) in teaching and learning process especially to teach English for Specific Purposes for Hotel Industry students.
Keywords: English for Specific Purposes; Direct Instruction; Cooperative Learning; Digital Media; Experimental Research
INTRODUCTION
As people realize that English becomes lingua
franca of the world and the universal language of
communication, they start to learn this language. No one denies the importance of English. Through English, people all over the world with different cultures can easily share their thoughts
and communicate each other. Along with the development of technology, English also plays a significant role; it is the language of technology, of computer and most importantly, the language used in the internet –a major breakthrough in the 21st century. With the help of the technology too,
sectors including medicine, engineering, economy, and education.
The question is, “how then can people fluently use English?” Education may be the
only appropriate tool to answer. Education allows people to learn and get to know things they want to accomplish. Since they were children until death comes to them, people cannot be separated from education, from the process of learning. Education is always given primary importance. Many countries across the globe from time-to-time focus on some specialized programs which are aimed at increasing the literacy rate in their own country. Every country now has understood the significance of providing education to its citizens in English language. Now, every country, instructs their education governor to divert the attention of the students to the language which will be helpful for their life, and here is English.
Indonesia, as one of the developing countries, seems to feel this importance. Some schools provide English to be the medium of teaching and learning process. Government has already made English as a compulsory subject in its educational system. Even, non-English subjects are now thought in English. Vocational school, whose students are required to enter a business world, also thinks that having a competence in English will really help the students to successfully do their job after they graduate. English for Specific Purposes (ESP) becomes a useful tool in helping students to both study the subject content and the English as the International language. It is going to be the duty of the teacher to consider the aim of English for Specific Purposes teaching, especially for vocational institution, that is to help students become proficient in the use of English not only for general communication, but also for the context of English within specific areas. Teacher should think that the students of vocational institution, whose main goal is applying job after graduating, should be able to communicate with native speaker, especially when they work with foreign company or a local company operated by foreign workers.
One of the industries that students of vocational school usually apply after they graduate and requires its employees to have a high ability in using English is hospitality and tourism industry. Hospitality and tourism
industry is an industry where communication is the key feature. Hotel industry is one of this kind. Students who will become hotel industry members should be able to comprehend, speak, and communicate in English. Teacher, then, becomes the one who has the responsibility in creating students who are able to fulfil those requirements. Teacher should find a good way to deliver not only the material, but also the language itself. For years, researcher has given lots of approaches and strategies in teaching. Teacher-centered learning has been a famous approach which is used by teacher. However, recently, teachers seek for another approach which they think can be the best approach to reach the goals, and that is student-centered learning. Applying student-centered learning in classroom is also not an easy job to do, especially in Indonesian schools. One popular strategy used is called cooperative learning where students should interact with others in a form of groups to solve a problem. In fact, many teachers prefer to use traditional one that is teacher-centered approach with direct instruction strategy as an example.
Some studies have been done regarding these two teaching strategies applied in Indonesian teaching and learning context. Marwan (2017), a researcher from State Polytechnic of Pontianak, conducted research
entitled “ESP Teaching Challenges in an Indonesian Vocational Higher Institution”. His
research highlighted the findings of a study conducted by a teacher who taught English for Specific Purposes at vocational higher institution in Indonesia. The result showed that English for Specific Purposes teaching in vocational higher institution was somewhat problematic. Some of the problems reported such as low motivation, poor proficiency, and lack of quality resources. Another is Zakaria, Solfitri, Daud, and Abidin (2013) who did a research regarding the effects of Cooperative Learning on Secondary School
Students’ Mathematics Achievement. They tried to compare the two strategies, cooperative learning and the traditional one, by applying experimental research. The findings of their research showed that there was a significant
difference of mean in students’ mathematics
entitled “Direct Instruction Model to Increase
Physical Science Competence of Students as One Form of Classroom Assessment”. He tried to
determine the level of students’ mastery on the
concept of measurement through direct instructional model. It was then known that the direct instructional model successfully improved student learning outcomes, especially to the concept of measurement.
This study, then, tries to investigate that confusion. It aims at investigating whether students who were taught English for Specific Purposes using cooperative learning strategy gained better achievement compared to those taught using direct instruction strategy by employing experimental research design. It is hoped that the result may help teachers, especially, to develop their way of teaching to be able to successfully teach English for Specific Purposes by using the most appropriate strategy. To achieve such a purpose, the study attempts at addressing these questions:
1. Do students who were taught English for Specific Purposes using cooperative learning strategy gained better achievement compared to those taught using direct instruction strategy?
2. How significant is the difference of the test of students who were taught English for Specific Purposes using cooperative learning strategy compared to those who were taught using direct instruction strategy?
English for Specific Purposes
It started in the year 1950 when people throughout the world have embarked upon studying English for various reasons (documentary, cultural, and/or educational). This continuously-growing interest in the study of English has led to the expansion of the domain of English Language Teaching (ELT), mainly concerned with the teaching of General English (GE). Due to the demand of more specific domain as mentioned by Johns and Dudley-Evans (1991) that ESP includes various academic Englishes such as English for science and technology, English for graduate teaching
assistant, and ‘general’ English for academic
purposes, in addition to a number of occupational ENglishes such as English for business, and vocational ESL (English for
workplace), however, a new interest emerged which is well-known as the study of English for particular or specific purposes (ESP).
Bojovic (2010) mentions three factors which led to the emergence of English for Specific Purposes; the expansion of demand for English to suit specific needs of a profession, developments in the field of linguistics, and educational psychology.
Since 1960s, ESP has become a vital and innovative activity within the teaching of English as a Foreign or Second Language movement (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). Until today, there is no exact meaning of English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Different people may interpret ESP differently. Butler (2009: 5) defined English for Specific Purposes in terms of two basic goals for learners; the acquisition of content knowledge of a specific field and the development of English skills required to perform in the discipline. Richards and Schmidt (2010: 198), on the other hand, defined ESP as the role of English in a language course programme of instruction in which the content and aims of the course are fixed by the specific needs of a particular group of learners. To sum up, ESP involves teaching and learning the specific skills and language needed by particular learners for a particular purpose (Day, J., & Krzanowski, M., 2011). Further, Strevens (1988)
stated “whoever is concerned with ESP should
know that ESP is designed to meet specified needs of learners; related to content, to particular disciplines, occupations and activities; and centred on the language appropriate to those activities in syntax, lexis, discourse,
semantics”. In this regard, ESP is seen as a unique domain of teaching and learning English in the sense that materials and methods are set
in accordance with the learner’s needs (Habtoor,
2012). McDonough (1984) further said that ESP becomes an ideal answer for educational irrelevance and inappropriacy since it tries to match teaching content to learner requirements. The roles of the ESP teacher, then, are said to be complex compared to those responsible in teaching General English (GE). Dudley-Evans and St.John (1998: 13) describes five key roles that an ESP teacher has, those are teacher, course designer and material provider, collaborator, researcher, and evaluator. The
be aware of the class objectives, to have a good understanding of the course content, as well as to be flexible and willing to cooperate with learners and have at least some interest in the discipline he/she is teaching.
ESP for Vocational Purposes (English for Hotel Management)
Along with the globalization of trade and economy and the continuing increase of international communication in various fields indicated with the prevailing era of world trade among members of ASEAN countries, the demand for English for Specific Purposes is expanding, especially in countries where English is taught as a Foreign Language as in case of English in Indonesia.
In response to these problems, it is
important to help students adapt to today’s
competitive society, meaning that vocational schools and colleges even certain faculties of universities need to design ESP courses that can best prepare learners for future professional communication, not just presenting general English for the sake of passing the exam on the English subject.
Introducing ESP can be done from first step before students try to enter a business world that is through vocational school. In vocational school students will learn how to use English to help them achieving their goals. One major in vocational school which needs further ability in using English as a mean of communication is hotel industry/management. As what is stated by Master (1998:208) that the content focus of English for Hotel management is the use of English as a means of communication with the customers. The English needed for hotel management includes being able to respond to and resolve any problem that might arise when the guest arrives at the hotel, during the stay, and when the guest leaves the hotel.
With the boom in the hotel industry in this day and age, more and more students are choosing careers in hotel management, where English is the primary language of international
communication. It becomes the teacher’s
responsibility, especially the ESP teacher, then, to be able to teach and deliver the subject, so that the goal of the teaching and learning process can be reached.
Cooperative Learning Strategy
Nowadays, people feel that the traditional approach (teacher-centred) cannot be well applied to teach students. They try to implement a more active teaching process, student-centred learning; and cooperative learning seems to fit that requirement.
Cooperative learning has been used at all educational levels, including professional development in business, education, law, and medicine. The concept of group learning is not new in education. Joyce, Weil, and Showers (1992) in Cynthia (1997) say that cooperative learning involves students working in small groups, helping one another learn academic material. Kagan and High (2002) described cooperative learning as teaching method in which students work in groups and their social interaction in the group is structured to ensure positive interdependence. It has been found beneficial across educational contexts, regardless of age of learners and content-area subjects (Slavin, 1990).
Four key elements reflect cooperative learning strategy as Estes, Mintz, and Gunter (2015) proposed; positive interdependence, individual accountability, face to face interactions, and social skills. They further stated two steps in implementing cooperative learning at class; (1) planning steps which consists of developing clear instructional goals, considering and planning the number in and composition of groups, making certain that cooperative activity has all of the key elements; and (2) implementation steps which consists of explaining the task, identifying the social skills that are critical for the success of the group, monitoring and providing feedback to individual groups as they are working, group summaries, evaluation, assessing group process. Holubec, Johnson, and Johnson (1993), however, described a more concise step in cooperative learning strategy which consists of six steps; identify the skill by naming and defining it, explain why it is needed, demonstrate the skill, provide opportunities to use and practice the skill, provide feedback on the skill, reflect on the performance of the skills and set future goals.
who will deliver the material to the students as the subject of the teaching and learning, should fulfil his/her roles such as what stated by Putnam (1997) as cited in Ong and Borich (2006); (1) determine the learning objectives which may be academically (such as knowledge acquisition) or socially, (2) decide on the most useful cooperative learning structure or method to be used, (3) determine the group size, (4) assign students to groups either randomly or using a stratified random assignment, (5) assign individual roles, and (6) ensure the arrangement of the classroom to facilitate group interaction.
Some techniques representing cooperative learning strategy can further be chosen by teacher in conducting the teaching process. Kagan and High (2002) presented some techniques such as jigsaw, think-pair-share, three-step interview, round robin brainstorming, three-minute review, numbered heads together, team-pair-solo, and circle the sage.
Direct Instruction Strategy
For almost fifty years, Direct Instruction has been studied and used in public school. Over several decades, educational research has consistently shown Direct Instruction to be highly effective for teaching low-level reading and math skills. The model can also be used effectively to teach rules and procedures. It is a highly teacher-directed strategy that is commonly used.
Direct instruction was well-known as a strategy in teacher-centered approach which means that the teacher is responsible for identifying learning objectives, and playing a role in explaining the content to the students. By this model, teacher demonstrates knowledge or skills to students step by step (Wenno, 2014). Estes, Mintz, and Gunter (2015) added that Direct Instructions is characterised by relatively short instructional periods followed by practice until mastery is achieved. A more complex characteristics is described by Rosenshine (1979) in Peterson (1979) who stated that Direct Instruction has the following characteristics, those are: an academic focus, a teacher-centred focus, little student choice of activity, use of large groups rather than small groups for instruction, and use of factual questions and controlled practice in instruction.
Furthermore, Estes, Mintz, and Gunter (2015) described six steps of Direct Instructions
strategy, those are: (1) review previously learned material, (2) state objectives for the lesson, (3) present new material, (4) guide practice, assess performance, and provide corrective feedback, (5) assign independent practice, assess performance, and provide corrective feedback, (6) review periodically, offering corrective feedback if necessary.
METHOD Research Design
The type of research used in the study was an experimental research. Best and Best (1982) stated that experimental design is the blueprint of the procedures that enable the researcher to test hypotheses by reaching valid conclusions about relationships between independent and dependent variables. He also stated that experimental research describes what will be when certain variables are carefully controlled or manipulated (Best & Best, 1982). The design that was used in the study is Quasi-Experimental Design (The Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Group Design).
Variables of the Research
There were two variables stated in the study, those were:
1. Independent Variable
In this study, the independent variable was the methods used in teaching public relations as the application of English for Specific Purposes; those were student-centered learning by the use of cooperative learning strategy and teacher-centered learning by the use of direct instructions strategy.
2. Dependent Variable
The dependent variable in this study was the results (scores) of the students before and after given the treatments.
Hypothesis
There were two hypotheses presented in this research, those were:
H0: There is no significant different
was taught by using direct instructions strategy.
H1: (+) The experiment group which was
taught public relations by using cooperative learning strategy gained better achievement compared to the comparison group which was taught by using direct instructions strategy (O1>O2)
(-) The comparison group which was taught public relations by using direct instructions strategy gained better achievement compared to the experiment group which was taught by using cooperative learning strategy (O1<O2)
Data Collection
Participants
Two classes of Akomodasi Perhotelan (hotel industry) which consisted of 36 students were chosen to be the sample of the study. One class was chosen as the experiment group and the other class as the comparison group. The study employed total sampling which is a type of purposive sampling technique which involves examining the entire population that have a particular set of characteristics.
Instrument
Test was used as the main instrument in collecting the data. It was chosen considering that it was the most appropriate instrument in testing the hypotheses. The tests used in the study were:
1. Pre-test is a trial to make the level of each group becomes equal before giving the treatment to the sample. There were 30 questions used as the items of the pre-test. Those questions were all about welcoming and registering guest. Both classes at the experiment and comparison group were given the pre-test. The students had 60 minutes to do the test.
2. Post-test is the final examination of the
research. The test was done after giving the treatments. The purpose of the post-test was to get evidence on the use of the two strategies –Cooperative Learning and Direct Instructions- in improving the
students’ mastery in applying English for
Specific Purposes. As the pre-test, this test
also consisted of 30 items of questions about welcoming and registering guests. 60 minutes was given to the students to do the test.
Data Analysis
Try Out Test Analysis
The try out was prepared before implementing the instrument. It was given to the class which did not belong to either experimental or comparison class. The difficulty level, discrimination power, validity, and reliability of the try out test were the ones which were being analysed in order to create a well-constructed instrument (test items).
Pre-Test Data Analysis
Before analysing the data using t-test, it is needed to find out the normality and homogeneity of the data. Normality test is pre-requirement in statistical analysis. The normality of the data was analysed to make sure that the data were normal. The study used Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in SPSS software 16.0. with significance level 0.05. The data are normally distributed if sig. >5% (0.05). Homogeneity is important to check whether the data of each group are homogeneous or not. The study used SPSS analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to find out the variance of homogeneity between the pre-test of the experiment class and the comparison class.
Post-Test Data Analysis
After the treatments using Cooperative Learning and Direct Instruction strategy were given, post-test was given and the data obtained after doing the post-test were analysed. The aim of analysing the data was to find out whether the results were appropriate with the hypotheses or not.
The study used two types of hypothesis test; hypothesis I (homogeneity) and hypothesis II (similarity test of means and significance test). Hypothesis I was used to know whether or not the two classes were homogeneous or having the same variance. Hypothesis II was used to know the significance different in mean between experiment class and comparison class.
H0 was rejected if ttable > tobtained. And if it
better achievement compared to the comparison class which was taught by using Direct Instruction strategy.
Figure 1.Data collection and analysis procedure
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Result of the Try out Test
As what has been stated above, there were four types of computations which were applied in order to test the instruments before giving it to the students of both groups. Those were item difficulty, discriminating power, validity, and reliability of the instruments.
From the computation of item difficulty using Microsoft Excel, it was found that 24 items were considered as easy and 26 items were medium which meant that the test could be used as a good instrument of evaluation. By computing the discrimination power, it was known that 16 items in the test were classified as poor, 13 items were satisfactory, 19 items were
good, and 2 items were excellent. The third is computing the validity; which showed that there were 34 items which were valid among the 50 items. 16 items were invalid and did not be used in making the instrument. Only the valid items were used in the pre-test. Based on the consideration regarding time allocation and the calculation, there were 30 items which finally be used in the instrument. Reliability, as the last analysis, shown that the instrument used in the research was reliable. The value of the computation were higher than the critical value; 0.849 > 0.468. the reliability of the try out test, then, was ranging between 0.70 and 0.90 (0.70 < r11 ≤ 0.90). Therefore, the reliability of it was considered as high.
Result of the Pre-Test
Pre-test was conducted to know the students’ mastery in public relation, especially in welcoming and registering guests. There were 36 students from both classes followed this test. They had to answer 30 questions which were written in English about the procedures and duties of hotel receptionist in welcoming and registering guest in a form of multiple-choice. The students were given 60 minutes to answer all of the questions. Scoring formula was then used to analyse the
students’ mastery. Score of the pre-test was achieved by dividing the total correct answers with the total number of items multiplied by 100. It is known, then, from the result of the pre-test that some students in both experiment and comparison class were failed. The average
score of the experiment class students’ pre-test was 55.28 while the average score of the
comparison class’ pre-test was 49.39. Generally
said, students’ mastery was low that they needed
some treatments to improve their mastery in applying English for Specific Purposes.
Two treatments to two groups were then given. The experiment class was given cooperative learning as the strategy in applying English for Specific Purposes while the comparison class was given Direct Instruction as the other strategy applied. Lots of techniques in both cooperative learning and direct instructions were used.
Treatments
Specific Purposes while the comparison class was given Direct Instruction as the other strategy. Lots of techniques in both strategies were applied.
In this study, each class had some meetings and there were five meetings given to apply the treatment; where I was being the teacher who taught students directly; the rest of meetings were used to do the try-out test, pre-test, and post-test.
The experiment class was given some Cooperative Learning techniques such as jigsaw, think-pair-share, snowball throwing, cooperative script, role-play, and numbered-head-together. On the other side, the comparison class was given some direct instruction techniques such as talking stick, pair-check, think-talk-write, make-a-match, and also role-play which focused on the individual potential.
Results of the Post-Test
Post-test was conducted after the two groups were given the treatments. It was done in order
to know the students’ mastery in welcoming and registering guest as the application of English for Specific Purposes after being given some treatments. There were 36 students of both
experiment and comparison classes followed the post-test. They had to answer 30 questions which were all written in English in a form of multiple-choice. 60 minutes was given to answer all questions. The scoring formula was the same as the pre-test by dividing the total correct answers with the total number of the items multiplied by 100.
Based on the post-test result, both experiment and comparison groups showed improvement though the improvement between the two was different. The average score of the
experiment class students’ post-test was 80.61
while the average score of the comparison class’
post-test was 71.33. The result showed a positive
impact towards students’ achievement and
participation during teaching and learning activities.
Analysis of the Data
Pre-Test Data Analyses
Normality test is pre-requirement in statistical analysis. One of the types is correlation analysis. The study used Kolomogorov-Smirnov test with significance level 0.05. After doing computation by using SPSS 16.0, the result can be seen on the table below.
Table 1. The Normality Test of Experiment Pre-Test Data
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
Pre-Experiment .135 18 .200* .959 18 .578
a. Lilliefors Significance Corection
* This is a lower bound of the true significance
Table 2. The Normality Test of Comparison Pre-Test Data
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
Pre-Experiment .198 18 .060* .896 18 .049
b. Lilliefors Significance Corection
* This is a lower bound of the true significance
From the table and figure above, it can be seen that sig. for experiment was 0.200 and because 0.200>0.050, it meant that the data from experiment class were normally distributed. Meanwhile, the sig. for comparison was 0.060 which also meant that the data were normally distributed.
Homogeneity, as the second analysis in pre-test, is important to check whether the data
Table 3. The Homogeneity Test result Pre-Test Data
Levene Statistic
df1 Df2 Sig.
1.458 5 9 293
Table 4. Significance Test
Group Statistics
Class N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Data 1
2
18 17
80.61 71.24
8.521 7.049
2.008 1.710
Table 5. Independent Sample Test Levene’s
Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for equality of Means
F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Differ
ence
Std. Error Differe nce
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper
Data Equal
variances assumed
.408 .528 3.535 33 .001 9.376 2.652 3.980 14.772
Equal
variances not assumed
3.555 32.457 .001 9.376 2.638 4.006 14.745
From the table above, two hypotheses can be tested (Hypothesis I –homogeneity- and Hypothesis II –significance test-).
Looking at the third column, we can see that the sig. was 0.528 where 0.528>0.050 which meant that H0 was accepted and that the two
classes had the same variance and were homogeneous (Hypothesis I –homogeneity-)
To test the hypothesis II, it can be seen from the table that the Sig. (2-tailed) was 0.001 and that 0.001 < 0.050 which meant that H0 was
rejected and H1 was accepted. It meant that the
mean of the experiment class was different from the mean of the comparison class.
In order to know which class was better, it can be seen from the table also that the tobtained was 3.535. For α = 5% and df=34 by inputting the
formula “TINV(2α;df)”/ “TINV(0.05;34)”on Microsoft Excel, it was known that ttable = 2.032.
because tobtained > ttable, H0 was rejected. It can be
concluded, then, that the result of experiment class was better than the comparison class.
Discussions of the Findings
The study was aimed at investigating whether students who were taught public relations as the application of English for Specific Purposes by using cooperative learning strategy gained better achievement compared to those who were taught by using direct instruction strategy.
In the pre-test, the average score of the comparison and experiment class was equal and was said to be normally distributed and homogeneous. The result of the post-test of the experiment class was higher than the post-test of the comparison class and was also said to be normally distributed and homogeneous and also there was a significant difference in their results. In the significant test, the tobtained value was
higher than ttable, so that it can be said that the
learning at class was effective and that there was a significant difference between those two classes.
The research findings revealed that the results of the treatment was contrary to the null hypothesis (H0) which states that “there is no significant difference in achievement and results between students who were taught public relations as the application of English for Specific Purposes by using Cooperative Learning strategy and those who were taught by using Direct
Instruction strategy”. So that the working
hypothesis (H1) was accepted, that there was a
significant difference between the two treatments applied.
The result of the study was consistent with the theoretical study stated above which suggests that it is important for teachers to be able to deliver the lesson in English in applying English for Specific Purposes and use the correct strategy to be able to achieve the goal. Cooperative learning strategy had shown a good result for both the teacher and the students in applying English for Specific Purposes. The use of media at class, especially digital media, such as powerpoint presentation, videos, blogs, and online quizzes can also help the strategy reaches the objectives that the teacher and the students want to obtain.
Although the study shown that cooperative learning gave lots of benefits, teachers, especially, still found some barriers that become challenges for them in implementing cooperative learning strategy at class. Those several barriers involved class size, curriculum pressures, and also time consumption. Some weaknesses found by the researcher of the study while implementing the strategy directly at class was that cooperative learning was seen as very time consuming and sometimes it creates such noise. In conclusion, it can be said that while implementing particular cooperative learning techniques, teachers should implement good classroom management to handle the effect of cooperative learning such as what mentioned above.
CONCLUSION
English for Specific Purposes becomes popular these recent days. Developing countries, such as Indonesia, tries to apply this approach. However,
as there are many strategies teacher can use to teach English for Specific Purposes, this study tried to know which strategy is best used to apply; cooperative learning strategy or direct instructions strategy. The objective of the stud, then, was to investigate whether there was a positive significant different achievement in learning English for Specific Purposes achieved by tenth grade students of vocational school majoring hotel industry who were taught using cooperative learning strategy from those who were taught using direct instructions strategy.
In order to gain the objectives, experimental research was conducted. Pre-test was given prior to the treatments and post-test was given afterward. The test was dealing with public relations duty in welcoming and registering guest, in a form of multiple-choice question. To make sure that the test was reliable and valid, the test was being tried out first. The results shown that the test was reliable; and that there were 34 items which were considered as valid while the rest of it, 16 items were invalid.
Based on the analysis done by using SPSS 16.0, it can be seen that the mean of the experiment group which was taught by using cooperative learning strategy is higher than that of the comparison group which was taught by using direct instructions strategy. After computing the t-test formula, it can be concluded that there was a positive significant different of
the students’ mastery between the two classes;
and since the t-test measurement was higher than t-table, it can be concluded that the experiment group gained better achievement than the comparison group. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. In other words, using cooperative
learning strategy in increasing students’
achievement in applying English for Specific Purposes was more effective than using direct instructions strategy.
RECOMMENDATION
students. There are a lot of approaches, methods, strategies, and techniques that can be used to help achieving the goal. One strategy which has been proven as effective in teaching English for Specific Purposes is cooperative learning strategy.
It is hoped that the study can be used as a reference for further studies on the use of cooperative learning and direct instructions as strategy in successfully achieving the gals in teaching English for Specific Purposes. It is also suggested to teacher, to try to divert their way of teaching from the traditional one which is teacher-centered learning to what has shown as a better way, which is student-centered learning, especially by the use of cooperative learning strategy.
REFERENCES
Best John, W., & Best, J. W. (1982). Research in education. Prentice Hall of India.
Bojovic, M. (2010, September). Reading skills and reading comprehension in English for specific purposes. Paper presentation at the Annual meeting of the European Business Document Association, Celje. Butler-Pascoe, M. E. (2009). English for specific
purposes (ESP), innovation, and
technology. English education and ESP, 1, 15.
Day, J., & Krzanowski, M. (2011). Teaching English for specific purposes: An introduction. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June, 18, 2014.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes:
A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge
university press.
Estes, T. H., Mintz, S. L., & Gunter, M. A. (2015). Instruction: A models approach. Pearson. Habtoor, H. A. (2012). English for Specific
Purpose Textbook in EFL Milieu: An Instructor's Perspective Evaluation. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 44.
Holubec, E., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Impact of cooperative learning on naval air traffic controller training. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(3), 337-346. Huff, C. (1997). Cooperative learning: a model for
teaching. Journal of Nursing Education. 36 (9),434-436.
Johns, A.M., & DUDLEY-EVANS, T. O. N. Y. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 297-314.
Kagan, S., & High, J. (2002). Kagan Structures for English Language Learners. ESL Magazine, 5(4), 10-12.
Marwan, A. (2017). ESP teaching challenges in an Indonesian vocational higher institution. The English Teacher. 12.
Master, Peter. 1998. Responses to English for specific purposes. San José State University.
McDonough, J. (1984). ESP in perspective: A practical guide. Taylor & Francis. Ong, A. C., & Borich, G. D. (Eds.). (2006).
Teaching strategies that promote thinking:
Models and curriculum approaches.
McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, P. L. (1979). Direct instruction: Effective for what and for whom. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 46-48.
Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (4th ed). Harlow: Pearson
Education Ltd.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Prentice-Hall. Strevens, P. (1988). ESP after twenty years:
Are-appraisal. ESP: State of the art, 1-13. Wenno, H. (2014). Direct Instruction Model to
Increase Physical Science Competence of Students as One Form of Classroom Assessment. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 3(3), 169-174.
Zakaria, E., Solfitri, T., Daud, Y., & Abidin, Z. Z. (2013). Effect of cooperative learning on
secondary school students’ mathematics
